Kernel page, once again

Jeroen Coumans jeroen at
Tue Jun 15 15:05:15 PDT 2004

Summary of your long post (please correct me if I misrepresent you):
1. we should include configuration and documentation for all possible 
combinations of packages which a user can optionally install. This is 
because the current docs about hotplug/udev are insufficient, and there 
are too many problems a user can run into.
2. if a package is optional and has alternatives, we should include at 
least one alternative.

This goes IMHO exactly against the currently default principle that we 
should provide instructions and support for one default choice, but 
point out alternatives. Arguments:
* including more then one alternative means you have to include all 
* there is no educational benefit for providing more then one package 
which serves the same function
* we try to keep the number of packages in the book down because LFS 
does not try to be everything to all people
* we have to assume the reader follows the book, because it would 
require not only a lot more support issues, but also testing and QA 
issues if we account for every deviation.

Furthermore, in my POV, optional only means that the package is not 
required for a fully functional LFS system, not that the book provides 
instructions in case you leave it out. Perhaps we should declare all 
packages mandatory...

Lastly, your points that udev's documentation is incomplete and it has a 
lot of possible traps are only arguments to reconsider the decision to 
include it in the book, not a reason to expand the book just because the 
package is not ready yet! I have repeatedly stated that I didn't 
consider udev ready for prime time (bleeding edge); seems that you just 
confirmed my opinion.

Jeroen Coumans

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list